From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECD7C433F5 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:51:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D696128A for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:51:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234084AbhJEOw7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:52:59 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:48850 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235042AbhJEOw6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:52:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1633445467; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LeZOuNsJ3uAWKW2DCApxQKRjJkRW8EI0ErFrrAz4siU=; b=V9LhmKf+KD0O0qN4ZWaoYmKZhfLPhgrGKNyLBXg5HIoE7puRScL2dG9qQXUnsBdpY1GcQS hssovL3QtzIvZrh7M33p6EtnW0z8M1Ian6NgAm573t4b3MgQAle1AswHlFrQHDjr6aYh9L FDLzaTfsWX6uWikRMAtsdqTtwMXnMS0= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-72-bYHkDj52ONmNfTgilAbvPA-1; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 10:51:06 -0400 X-MC-Unique: bYHkDj52ONmNfTgilAbvPA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id u14-20020a7bcb0e0000b0290248831d46e4so1146217wmj.6 for ; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 07:51:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:to:cc:references:from:subject:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LeZOuNsJ3uAWKW2DCApxQKRjJkRW8EI0ErFrrAz4siU=; b=j01oGCvTaC0ZVPWVWsYXe+pSMSQpeoT89korRItztGEgBim0auegyPgOx/GV04/b1U 8OGGOZvca+IPiDwHTAn5srgYwLr/zkhOBSJrY6jGuAhdNFxIMUaCAJbkZoCmWusueqIQ pR4JFp17d6/kmupkkU2iuqcyqsK0IQw0IDZCPeirulO38mU0OZ2S0OmDY2agzwYn77Wc MxyzFE8EF2hgFxF2VwokLpBuDuuSm2zYiUTt2bydmxn4V2X9ufuIlmlfOBFZniMiI6p+ 6JzaIFbusV271b2oHFe/LTKie10LW0yG9L8dU4i5lfy3DUX3BcfakmYxFnQ9Wv07EsTk Z4yg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531tIbqcT5qG4DI8eAFD+cuCxTqiQYyy7Z+Q0blrA5Pu9zYSrQq8 /lVeQ0//QKuf9SW2HlWBAJiMG3tWp09KsLoE8E9nocIJ8awdnYN8dlqbfMEDWGy2sB5xHvKl++n Xubho3o0plObkXPvyMJv5lUzvJU6tYDly12r7OfhDabFoDCwgbU+vLv6yUTnkp9UZ8rQwTw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:c992:: with SMTP id f18mr694337wrh.138.1633445465355; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 07:51:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwcZ/iAQRs08uIODgdMGgm4VcTrOEqpbIC7mrsVnM3/t3b4y3eBNB69rtsbR6diKodOC/MJtQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:c992:: with SMTP id f18mr694290wrh.138.1633445465023; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 07:51:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thuth.remote.csb (p549bb2bd.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [84.155.178.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z1sm14138897wrt.41.2021.10.05.07.51.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Oct 2021 07:51:04 -0700 (PDT) To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch , Janosch Frank Cc: Cornelia Huck , Claudio Imbrenda , David Hildenbrand , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org References: <20211005090921.1816373-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com> <20211005090921.1816373-2-scgl@linux.ibm.com> From: Thomas Huth Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 1/5] s390x: Add specification exception test Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 16:51:03 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20211005090921.1816373-2-scgl@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 05/10/2021 11.09, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > Generate specification exceptions and check that they occur. > With the iterations argument one can check if specification > exception interpretation occurs, e.g. by using a high value and > checking that the debugfs counters are substantially lower. > The argument is also useful for estimating the performance benefit > of interpretation. > > Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch > --- > s390x/Makefile | 1 + > s390x/spec_ex.c | 182 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > s390x/unittests.cfg | 3 + > 3 files changed, 186 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 s390x/spec_ex.c > > diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile > index ef8041a..57d7c9e 100644 > --- a/s390x/Makefile > +++ b/s390x/Makefile > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ tests += $(TEST_DIR)/mvpg.elf > tests += $(TEST_DIR)/uv-host.elf > tests += $(TEST_DIR)/edat.elf > tests += $(TEST_DIR)/mvpg-sie.elf > +tests += $(TEST_DIR)/spec_ex.elf > > tests_binary = $(patsubst %.elf,%.bin,$(tests)) > ifneq ($(HOST_KEY_DOCUMENT),) > diff --git a/s390x/spec_ex.c b/s390x/spec_ex.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..dd0ee53 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/s390x/spec_ex.c > @@ -0,0 +1,182 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > +/* > + * © Copyright IBM Corp. 2021 Could we please avoid non-ASCII characters in source code if possible? ... it's maybe best if you do the Copyright line similar to the other *.c files from IBM that are already in the repository. > + * Specification exception test. > + * Tests that specification exceptions occur when expected. > + */ > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > + > +static struct lowcore *lc = (struct lowcore *) 0; > + > +static bool expect_invalid_psw; > +static struct psw expected_psw; > +static struct psw fixup_psw; > + > +/* The standard program exception handler cannot deal with invalid old PSWs, > + * especially not invalid instruction addresses, as in that case one cannot > + * find the instruction following the faulting one from the old PSW. > + * The PSW to return to is set by load_psw. > + */ > +static void fixup_invalid_psw(void) > +{ > + if (expect_invalid_psw) { > + report(expected_psw.mask == lc->pgm_old_psw.mask > + && expected_psw.addr == lc->pgm_old_psw.addr, > + "Invalid program new PSW as expected"); > + expect_invalid_psw = false; > + } > + lc->pgm_old_psw = fixup_psw; > +} > + > +static void load_psw(struct psw psw) > +{ > + uint64_t r0 = 0, r1 = 0; > + > + asm volatile ( > + " epsw %0,%1\n" > + " st %0,%[mask]\n" > + " st %1,4+%[mask]\n" > + " larl %0,nop%=\n" > + " stg %0,%[addr]\n" > + " lpswe %[psw]\n" > + "nop%=: nop\n" > + : "+&r"(r0), "+&a"(r1), [mask] "=&R"(fixup_psw.mask), > + [addr] "=&R"(fixup_psw.addr) stg uses long displacement, so maybe the constraint should rather be "T" instead? > + : [psw] "Q"(psw) > + : "cc", "memory" > + ); > +} > + > +static void psw_bit_12_is_1(void) > +{ > + expected_psw.mask = 0x0008000000000000; > + expected_psw.addr = 0x00000000deadbeee; > + expect_invalid_psw = true; > + load_psw(expected_psw); > +} > + > +static void bad_alignment(void) > +{ > + uint32_t words[5] = {0, 0, 0}; > + uint32_t (*bad_aligned)[4]; > + > + register uint64_t r1 asm("6"); > + register uint64_t r2 asm("7"); > + if (((uintptr_t)&words[0]) & 0xf) > + bad_aligned = (uint32_t (*)[4])&words[0]; > + else > + bad_aligned = (uint32_t (*)[4])&words[1]; > + asm volatile ("lpq %0,%2" > + : "=r"(r1), "=r"(r2) > + : "T"(*bad_aligned) > + ); > +} > + > +static void not_even(void) > +{ > + uint64_t quad[2]; > + > + register uint64_t r1 asm("7"); > + register uint64_t r2 asm("8"); > + asm volatile (".insn rxy,0xe3000000008f,%0,%2" //lpq %0,%2 > + : "=r"(r1), "=r"(r2) > + : "T"(quad) > + ); > +} > + > +struct spec_ex_trigger { > + const char *name; > + void (*func)(void); > + void (*fixup)(void); > +}; > + > +static const struct spec_ex_trigger spec_ex_triggers[] = { > + { "psw_bit_12_is_1", &psw_bit_12_is_1, &fixup_invalid_psw}, > + { "bad_alignment", &bad_alignment, NULL}, > + { "not_even", ¬_even, NULL}, > + { NULL, NULL, NULL}, > +}; > + > +struct args { > + uint64_t iterations; > +}; > + > +static void test_spec_ex(struct args *args, > + const struct spec_ex_trigger *trigger) > +{ > + uint16_t expected_pgm = PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION; > + uint16_t pgm; > + unsigned int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < args->iterations; i++) { > + expect_pgm_int(); > + register_pgm_cleanup_func(trigger->fixup); > + trigger->func(); > + register_pgm_cleanup_func(NULL); > + pgm = clear_pgm_int(); > + if (pgm != expected_pgm) { > + report(0, > + "Program interrupt: expected(%d) == received(%d)", > + expected_pgm, > + pgm); > + return; > + } > + } > + report(1, > + "Program interrupt: always expected(%d) == received(%d)", > + expected_pgm, > + expected_pgm); > +} > + > +static struct args parse_args(int argc, char **argv) > +{ > + struct args args = { > + .iterations = 1, > + }; > + unsigned int i; > + long arg; > + bool no_arg; > + char *end; > + > + for (i = 1; i < argc; i++) { > + no_arg = true; > + if (i < argc - 1) { > + no_arg = *argv[i+1] == '\0'; > + arg = strtol(argv[i+1], &end, 10); Nit: It's more common to use spaces around the "+" (i.e. "i + 1") > + no_arg |= *end != '\0'; > + no_arg |= arg < 0; > + } > + > + if (!strcmp("--iterations", argv[i])) { > + if (no_arg) > + report_abort("--iterations needs a positive parameter"); > + args.iterations = arg; > + ++i; > + } else { > + report_abort("Unsupported parameter '%s'", > + argv[i]); > + } > + } > + return args; > +} > + > +int main(int argc, char **argv) > +{ > + unsigned int i; > + > + struct args args = parse_args(argc, argv); > + > + report_prefix_push("specification exception"); > + for (i = 0; spec_ex_triggers[i].name; i++) { > + report_prefix_push(spec_ex_triggers[i].name); > + test_spec_ex(&args, &spec_ex_triggers[i]); > + report_prefix_pop(); > + } > + report_prefix_pop(); > + > + return report_summary(); > +} Apart from the nits, this looks fine to me. Thomas